PLEASE FIX AIR COMBAT!

[Cpt Sherwood]

Nik, will they get any hits at 2-6 range? Or will the engine just spend time trying?

[Nikademus]

No hits...the routine will resolve the combat exactly as in stock in terms of range selections by the aircraft only anything firing at range 2 or more will never hit anything because the devices in Sid's altered files were changed to range 1. You can't make the a2a model only fight at range 1. It is hard-coded to resolve combat at ranges 1-6.

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: Miller

As a UV player I find threads like this disheartening to read. Puts me off ever buying WITP.

How much of the WITP air model is carried over from UV? I ask because apart from the obscene Corsair bonus the UV air model seems to work well.....

Wrong, the air model is probably the part of WITP that is the closest of UV. The worst part of the two models is that every unit on CAP will intercept every incoming unit, even if it has fought allready ten raids this turn.

In UV I saw 17 Corsairs intercept 100 Betties/Helens escorted by 50 Oscars and 150 Zeroes They shot down more than 100 AC and turned back most of the others for 4-6 losses, and the Japanese units had all experience of 60+.

What saved UV from the unhistorical results so often seen in WITP was that there was far less AC and concentration was not possible on the same way, or rather not so easily and so soon in the war. But deathstars allready existed, heavy bombers were allready super-killers and so on.

[treespider]

Not having monkeyed around with A2A yet what effects come about by:

#1 - Halving the Durability of the AC

#2 - Halving the Maneuverability AC

#3 - Halving the Range of the guns

#4 - Halving the effect of the guns

#5 - Halving the accuracy of the guns

Just curious...maybe I'll create a test scenario and find out for myself unless someone else already has.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

ORIGINAL: Miller

As a UV player I find threads like this disheartening to read. Puts me off ever buying WITP.

How much of the WITP air model is carried over from UV? I ask because apart from the obscene Corsair bonus the UV air model seems to work well.....

Wrong, the air model is probably the part of WITP that is the closest of UV. The worst part of the two models is that every unit on CAP will intercept every incoming unit, even if it has fought allready ten raids this turn.

In UV I saw 17 Corsairs intercept 100 Betties/Helens escorted by 50 Oscars and 150 Zeroes They shot down more than 100 AC and turned back most of the others for 4-6 losses, and the Japanese units had all experience of 60+.

What saved UV from the unhistorical results so often seen in WITP was that there was far less AC and concentration was not possible on the same way, or rather not so easily and so soon in the war. But deathstars allready existed, heavy bombers were allready super-killers and so on.

-Latter versions of WiTP (2.40-2.42) seem to result in pretty low losses in A2A, even in large battles.
However, I never saw those Corsairs in action.

[el cid again]

Nik also explained why this would happen; because the game engine is not designed to handle a2a combat with gun devices set to a maximum range of 1. It will still attempt to resolve a2a combat at ranges 2-6 and will display it in the combat animations. (i.e. it will show plane x firing on plane y at ranges 2-6 even if it's guns have a max range of 1)

It probably is accidental, but this is right! In the Falklands, we believe EVERY Sidewinder that failed to hit was launched at too great a range and ran out of fuel/energy. [That was one case in 6 - exactly 5 in 6 hit.] One reason was that planes were modified to shoot Sidewinder with NO radar to tell the target range - so pilots had to guess. Well, with guns it is the same thing, particularly in WWII when they didn't have gunlaying radar on planes. Many misses are going to be shots at too great a range. I have no particular problem with this. I DO have a problem exaggerating the range of ALL weapons by 300 to 500 % and then complaining that the air combat is too bloody. What do you expect?

[el cid again]

Wrong, the air model is probably the part of WITP that is the closest of UV. The worst part of the two models is that every unit on CAP will intercept every incoming unit, even if it has fought allready ten raids this turn.

While this may be what you have seen, it is NOT true in the sense that other results are possible. I find multiple strikes work very well BECAUSE it is NOT true. The later strikes get through because the cap is gone - or almost gone. Typically, the SECOND strike faces EXTRA CAP - if there are more planes available and the field is still up - but after that the CAP seems to get "tired" - it becomes less effective. After about 5 strikes the CAP seems to die - if the strikes are big enough. Once I had a single Boomerang go up late in a strike series - he took on dozens of Zeros and even shot one down - I wanted to give him a medal - even though I was the Japanese! But my strike penetrated with all its bombers.

[el cid again]

Not having monkeyed around with A2A yet what effects come about by:

#1 - Halving the Durability of the AC

#2 - Halving the Maneuverability AC

#3 - Halving the Range of the guns

#4 - Halving the effect of the guns

#5 - Halving the accuracy of the guns

Just curious...maybe I'll create a test scenario and find out for myself unless someone else already has.

Having done an analysis, I conclude:

accuracy is correct - leave it alone UNLESS the particular weapon has a true data error - accuracy is the square root of ROF - nothing fancy - just that - and it is not a bad indicator of hit probability given all ranges are about the same - as ROF goes up HP goes up - but not directly - this is correct

range should be 1 in virtually all cases [Exception - 57mm and above IF you define new weapons - I have for Ki-102b - it gets a range of 2] This means you are dividing range by 3, 4 or 5 in most cases.

effect should be the cube root of weapon round weight with the special cases that .30 is 1, .50 is 2. On that basis, 15mm becomes 3, 20mm becomes 7, 23 mm becomes 8, etc.

aircraft speed should be expressed in knots

aircraft maneuverability and ROC should be correct - change only if the data is wrong

aircraft vulnerability should be changed only if there is some reason to think that plane is wrong - otherwise leave it as is - I do not even understand what it means in objective terms - I don't mess with what I do not understand the definition of

planes with radar should be given it - thus Japanese night fighters that actually have radar need to be so fitted if you want them to work right

[el cid again]

No hits...the routine will resolve the combat exactly as in stock in terms of range selections by the aircraft only anything firing at range 2 or more will never hit anything because the devices in Sid's altered files were changed to range 1. You can't make the a2a model only fight at range 1. It is hard-coded to resolve combat at ranges 1-6.

This is really good. For one thing, it means that planes with long range weapons can still fit in the model. Up to 75mm guns - and air to air rockets - may be used at ranges greater than 1 - I believe some may at least make 3 effective range - and 4 might be possible - while 2 is fairly common for heavy weapons.

It ALSO is good in another sense. Many pilots and gunners want to shoot at too great a range. It is natural and a horrible waste of ammunition. It is a reason the average pilot or gunner NEVER scores a kill EVER period!
The model is probably going to bring us closer to reality than any programmer would have done - if we combine range 1 weapons with this attempt to shoot at whatever range the tangle ends at.

[irishman]

Just one thing that seems to have been overlooked. The original post stated that the Mohawks were on 100% CAP. That means that they were on LR-CAP which is much less effective even when over your own base. Stick with 90% CAP maximum!

[spence]

I have no idea how the issue of ammunition supply is addressed in the code. For the A6M2 cannon ammunition was something of an issue though. According to "Shattered Sword" Torpedo 6, which attacked all by itself just like Torpedo 8, was able to survive the onslaught of the Japanese CAP for a much longer time because most of the Japanese fighters had severely depleted their cannon ammo in the slaughter of Torpedo 8. Even against the TBD the 7.7s were pratically ineffective.
Playing with the range of A2A weaponry as is suggested may prove to be a good way to address the heavy losses in large A2A combats. I might suggest though that the .50 cal and 20mm be given a range of 2 rather than one. It seems to me that both weapons had an effect in A2A that was along the line of an order of magnitude greater than the .30 cal/7.7mm. This of course will render the Nate totally useless along with a couple of varieties of early Allied fighters (as if they aren't already). If ammo supply is somehow worked into the sequence of A2A if would also tend to make the A6M2 less effective on CAP. (Without meaningful fighter direction KBs CAP was not and could not be as omnipotent as WitP allows). Let's pretend for a second that as each wave of Allied planes arrives an increasing number of whatever percentage CAP the Japanese Player has essentially becomes Nates due to ammo depletion. That might cure the uberCAP problem.

Mostly just musing.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Captain Ed

Curious are you playing with PDU`s on. Your Japanese opponent seems to have a lot of Tony`s. I think having PDU`s on has skewed the game tremendously. In the real world this kind of strike make-up would I think be impossible for the Japanese. I think that PDU`s have such a far reaching effect on this game changing it from a simulation to one of fiction. If you had PDU`s off I doubt your opponent could have put that many Tony`s in the air in one strike, you would most likely have faced a combination of Oscar`s and A6Ms a force you could have had a better result against.

Yes we are playing with PDU’s on and he has been converting all of his air groups to Tony’s across the board. I have recently informed him my only option to combat this will be to switch over to the uber 2E to 4E bomber conversion method, something I have resisted doing up to this point.

The Tony isn’t as good as the zero, but I think he chose to do this to streamline his production so he only has one fighter aircraft type in production. I imagine he is or will be producing soon hundreds if not thousands of Tony’s a month.

With a maneuver rating of only 32, it’s a step down from the zero, but the gun rating makes it an effective bomber killer, so perhaps my 4E conversion will be a wasted effort if his Tony’s shred the heavies the way they are shredding everything else currently.

Hindsight being 20/20 I would never have agreed to PDU’s, but nothing changes the fact the air combat routines are busted with or without PDU’s.

Air losses should be reduced by a factor of 10 or more I think. Perhaps only allowing fighters enough ammo for 1 shot would do the trick. Currently it’s not uncommon to see dozens of aces made in a single engagement. While 5 kills in a single mission happened once in a blue moon during the actual war, it happens almost every other day in WitP.

Jim

"Yes we are playing with PDU’s on and he has been converting all of his air groups to Tony’s across the board."

This brings up another point regarding my view that there free supply at every resource centre is a major culprit to screwing up the game overall. Many say that the GLOBAL SUPPLY LEVELS are OK and that really, the issue is more just the free supply, lack of port daily operations limits and resultant breakneck speed of game. I am starting to think that global supply is an issue as well because of these very things.

For the Allies, because there are no ops limits at ports, I believe that available daily supply at the supply centres is going to have to be reduced as a counter. In my game, despite running over 100 convoys, the supply at these centres is barely dented. It is only March 42 and I've only just received the first Liberty ship. The massive numbers of merchants, no withdrawl requirement for merchants, no civilian need for merchants, and no ops limits at ports is going to highlight this problem further in the near future. TOO MUCH SUPPLY.

For the Japanese, as I've said before, the supply generated at the resource centres really mucks up the already under utilized merchant marine as supplies do not need to be shipped from the home islands. But we are seeing Japanese production being geared up to the maximum so that aircraft production is way off (Japan actually can outproduce the Allies! as has been shown in the AARs) yet, total supply in the Japanese coffers steadily increases. When comments like (these by Mogami I believe) "I leave hundreds of AKs in Port Arthur to make up for the supply model", or , "I promise not to produce Tonies until late 42 and to restrict the usage" become necessary, perhaps there is TOO MUCH SUPPLY.

[treespider]

Has anyone tweaked the dud rate on any of the A2A guns to see what impact that has?

[tigercub]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I am going insane with the friggin air combat routines in this game. Below is the latest air combat in Burma in my game, over the last 5 to 6 game days I have suffered similar results every day. This one is made even more ridiculous because every single fighter was a confirmed air to air kill according to the air losses display. My groups were in the mid 50 to mid 60 range in average experience (my best pilots in the groups were high 70’s) with zero fatigue and a 100% intercept for my defending CAP during this raid.

Granted I should have lost the battle but not ONE enemy plane was shot down. NOT ONE!

This is nuts, PLEASE fix the broken air combat routines in this game. I have lost upwards of 300 fighters in a week to about a total of 10 enemy planes shot down. This is pathetic and I assume the same thing will happen to the Japanese when the better US planes arrive. Air combat is far too bloody and far too one sided, PLEASE fix it.

In this example his Tony’s with maneuver ratings of 32 decimated my Mohawks with Maneuver ratings of 30. Yes the Tony’s are better aircraft but not by much, it is obvious experience is the decisive factor to such a degree it breaks all other considerations and decimates the losing side. His groups are in the 80’s according to a recent email he has sent, so a 20-30 point difference makes him invulnerable in air to air combat.

Jim

Day Air attack on Dacca , at 31,24

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 104
Ki-21 Sally x 56
Ki-49 Helen x 36

Allied aircraft
Mohawk IV x 48

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 1 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Mohawk IV: 48 destroyed
LB-30 Liberator: 5 destroyed
F-5A Lightning: 4 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
32 casualties reported

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 74

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
15 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
10 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
9 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
4 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
8 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
1 x Ki-49 Helen bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Ki-21 Sally bombing at 6000 feet

your not going to get much usefull help form them, i made a mod to the game spent one year doing it and its still going, works a lot better than there mess.They have done a lot of work on this game thanks to the makers but it is still in very poor shape! for a war game of its type there is none better!

[treespider]

Does anyone know how operational losses are handled? Are thay dependent on any of the planes ratings ....such as durability?

[KDonovan]

Just one thing that seems to have been overlooked. The original post stated that the Mohawks were on 100% CAP. That means that they were on LR-CAP which is much less effective even when over your own base. Stick with 90% CAP maximum!

Why is 90% CAP better than 100%.....??

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

Just one thing that seems to have been overlooked. The original post stated that the Mohawks were on 100% CAP. That means that they were on LR-CAP which is much less effective even when over your own base. Stick with 90% CAP maximum!

Why is 90% CAP better than 100%.....??

100%CAP is LRCAP and isn't used to defend the units base.

[TheElf]

I agree with Joe Wilkerson. I think we all agree that smaller engagements are fine, large ones aren't. I have regular encounters in China and even in the S/SW Pacific where only one, two, or even three aircraft are shot down. Total. I also see my P-38s have a bad every now and again vs. Tonys and even A6M2s.

The difference is I try not to get into the typical WitP player's "keeping up with the Joneses" rut. I'm beginning to believe the cold war-style arms race in the sky's of WITP and human nature are really the culprits of the whacked A2A model. What I mean by this is players often see an A2A battle where they didn't get the upper hand and think; "Hmmm... next time I'll get him, I'll just send more aircraft..." the next turn the disappointed opponent thinks; "hmmmm...ok I see how it is, let's see him beat THIS..." and the Numerical advantage race is on.

The people I see posting the "This air model is broken!" threads tend to have retardedly large air battles where the already weak A2A system sees what the "bad man" is doing, puts on it's safety helmet, and proceeds to lick the inside window of the short bus in hopes the "bad man" will stop....

Yes, the system is weak. Yes it needs to be "fixed". Yes, there are too many 4E bombers. Yes it's too easy to close an airfield. Yes, the KB's CAP is impenetrable. Yes, large air battle result in lopsided results, BUT....

I've said it once. I've said it 100 times:

"Garbage in = Garbage out"
"Ahistorical use = Ahistorical results"

Jim D Burns, I am not claiming you are one of these people. I see your results and I see a bad ahistorical result. It sounds to me like PDUs are having there way with you and your opponent is not playing responsibly with them. Though I could be wrong.

For all players:
Player discipline, a working knowledge of WWII air combat history, and the internal 8u!!$#it filter should precede any turn. If you stick to the realm of combat in the Pacific reality, and play intelligently rather than belligerently you'll find the results more palatable.

Here are some hints:
1. Don't put more aircraft at a field than it can handle

2. Don't mass every level bomber you have against one target. Some LBs were designed for a particualr mission. Use that LB for its historical mission. ex. Leave Beauforts on naval attack and B-26's on Ground or airfield attack

3. Keep a mix of aircraft types at a field

4. Never base more than one B-17 group at a given field and only target them in groups size raids.

5. With PDUs on Allies 2E LB should be limited to 2E upgrades. Same for 1E bombers.

6. Cover all your bases. Avoid stacking EVERYTHING in one place. Spread'em out.

7. Rest your air units. Don't be in such a hurry to wipe out the enemy. Divide large fighter units and give them different missions. Keep an eye on morale and rotate units back to rear area fields to recuperate morale. also train the replacement pilots for a couple days before hurling them back to the front.

8. limit heavy bomber units to flying every other day in realistic numbers.


Back in the day when RTS(real time strategy) games where en vogue, the big complaint was the "tank rush". I'm sure everyone here has played some kind of RTS, particularly Command & Conquer. For anyone who doesn;t know what the "tank rush" is, it was when a player built and built tanks and tanks, and MORE tanks. At some point when he thought he had enough, he clicked and dragged the "get all box" around them and then clicked on his opponents base. The result? A dimwitted cluster f--- of a plan to destroy the opponents productions facilities and such all at once and win the match. Wow. That's great. Lots of fun, and not probably the way the game designers imagined the game would be played.

I'll argue here that there has yet to be a game designed that can design human natures will to defy the rules out of it. There is always a loop hole, a cheat, a unimaginative tactic usually involving massing one thing or another in unimagined numbers and rolling over everything. Thus the state of the A2A model in WitP today....

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: irishman

Just one thing that seems to have been overlooked. The original post stated that the Mohawks were on 100% CAP. That means that they were on LR-CAP which is much less effective even when over your own base. Stick with 90% CAP maximum!

You miss-read my meaning. CAP was set to 60%, but the raid rolled a 100% intercept. In other words we detected the incoming raid and all planes made it into the air. Fatigue was at zero and morale was in high 70's for all groups.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

So, excuse me for being too harsh, but you did two stupid things - didn't upgrade crap Mohawks to something better, and didn't carpet bomb Tony base - and you complain when you get clobbered?

I think this is yet another case of player not being a good player/strategist, or thinking he's "just being fair", and turning his anger on the system when things go bad.

Had you bothered to read and actually comprehend what I wrote you dimwit, you’d realize 250 other (better) fighters had already been destroyed to virtually no loss to the Tony’s in just a weeks time. But true to your simple minded base ignorant self you insult my intelligence and play ability for reasons that elude me.

The allies lack Japans unlimited production abilities and have to contend with empty aircraft pools for all of 1942 and most of 1943. I realize you have very little experience playing as the allies, but trust me had there been better airframes to use the Mohawks would be upgraded. But in fact they are one of my better airframes left with any kind of reserves in the pool at all.

So in conclusion I do not excuse your rude comments and ask that you refrain from further discourse with me as it appears you really have nothing constructive to add.

Jim